I don't mind it on principle, but many of these seem so forced. The claim is "confused" so it's like the Jimi Hendrix lyric which happens to mention the word "confusion." Great stuff.

But if there is a way to be funny or reference some pop culture source that at least relates to the argument or assertion the Judge is making, then that is fine. Stevens in his Heller dissent told the story of the blind who try to describe an elephant. Agree or disagree, it was helpful to making his point. Bob Dylan lyrics? I'm not sure.

As a litigator, the last thing I want is a judge who I don't think gives a damn about the solemnity and importance of his office, and that is exactly what I am going to think that I am getting if a judge goes out of his way to contrive a quirky, rhyming opinion such as this.

My experience has been that in most cases where judges do things like this, the lawyers (for one or both sides) have already made such a mockery of the proceeding that the judge can't do anything more to undermine the solemnity and importance of his office.

Is your objection to the practice, or just to the practice done poorly? Because when it's (rarely) done well, it strikes me as a win-win. In any event, I hope your complaint doesn't reach beyond legal opinions. There's some classic stuff, like J. Kozinski and Eugene's piece on Yiddish, which is pretty cute.

No one wants a wanna-be stand-up comedian for a judge. However, this was in response to a 465-page complaint filed by a lawyer in federal court. If any situation called for (or was excused by) a little levity, surely this was it.

The practice is self-indulgent and annoying. When it's done poorly, it's even more self-indulgent and annoying and has no redeeming value. If judges are afraid of writing boring opinions, perhaps they should work on their writing skills and make their opinions clearer (and thereby less tedious) instead of winking at law students and bloggers in the footnotes.

In Jenkins v. BellSouth Corp., 491 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2007), Judge Pryor opened the opinion with an analogy between a "revival" of a religious service (common in the South) and the petitioner's argument, which sought a "revival" of an enforceable right. That added a bit of color to the opinion and framed the legal issue without being self-indulgent.

On the other hand, Syufy and the Billy Madison-inspired bankruptcy court "order denying motion for incomprehensibility" and similar things are good for a laugh, but are ultimately self-indulgent and have no place in a judicial opinion. If a judge needs a creative outlet, s/he can write on the side.

I have less of a problem with judicial levity where there is no substantive right being affected. Plaintiff is just being asked to redraw his complaint, he's not getting thrown out of court or having judgment entered against him.

Similar to the UT-Arkansas football opinion a couple of weeks ago. It's okay to be cutesy when you're officiating over a meaningless discovery spat over the location of a deposition. Not so if this was a prisoner seeking habeas relief.

The use of "judicial humor" is a surprisingly (or not?) controversial topic. During law school a prof and I were going to write an article on it. There was already enough literature out there, so we didn't.

While the cites to those articles are long-forgotten, I did remember this website. Worth checking out.

I have a great sense of humor. In fact, I'm the funniest person I know. That being said, judicial opinions are not the places for levity at our clients expense. Parties, even ones grossly in the wrong, have unattractive emotions tied up in litigation, and antagonizing those emotions, or, worse, showing disrespect for the people for whom we work by carving a lampoonish frieze of them into the annals of jurisprudence is arrogant and despicable.